In July 2013 the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Asafa Powell after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance oxilofrine (methylsynephrine).

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation and accepted a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Jamaica Anti-Doping (JAD) Disciplinary Panel.
The Athlete stated that he used the supplement Epiphany D1, which contained the prohibited substance and provided by his physical therapist, and asserted that he checked the ingredients of his supplements before using.

The Panel considers that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance but he also acted with fault and negligence. Therefore the JAD Disciplinary Panel decides on 1 May 2014 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 June 2013 until 20 December 2014.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) alleges Bruce Croall, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During cycling events on October 6 and 9, 2013, samples were taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples showed the presence of Oxilofrine which is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The athlete explains that the prohibited substance must have been present in supplements he had used during the cycling events. He had no intention to enhance his sport performance. Allthough the supplement’s packaging contains no reference to Oxilofrine nor is there any listed ingredient that has been proved to contain it, the same supplement was used by another athlete who tested positive in a different sport. Tests in November 2013 from another sachet in the same batch confirmed the presence of Oxilofrine in that sample.

However it should be clear that it has not been established that such supplement became contaminated other than in the course of manufacture. That can't be known. Nevertheless, it must be abundantly clear to other athletes that there is at least a risk that any product bearing that name or description may be similarly contaminated.
In this case the athlete was tested before using, as he claims, the same supplements and the tests were negative. He had then no awareness of taking a prohibited substance.
The panel agrees to a reduction of the period of ineligibility because of no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months.
2. All the result obtained at the cycling events on October 6 and 9, 2013, are cancelled. Medals, points and prizes are withdrawn.

Costs
Mr Croall will have to bear the “costs of results management by the UCI in the amount of CHF 2,500”.

In August 2011 the Polish Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Krzystof Hotowski after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance oxilofrine.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and admitted he had used supplements and fatburners to lose weight.
He stated he didn’t know the supplements contained prohibited substances and paid less research of the ingredients of the supplements until he was notified of the positive test.
On 5 October 2011 the Games and Discipline Commission of the Polish Rugby Union decided to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

In July 2012, due to the late delivery of the complete case file, WADA appealed the decision of the Polish Ice Hockey Federation with the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee (Trybunał Arbitrażowy do Spraw Sportu przy Polskim Komitecie Olimpijskim).
WADA argued that the Athlete should be sanctioned with ineligibility for a period of 2 years and that there are no grounds for waiving or shortening the sanction.

The Tribunal rules that WADA’s appeal is granted in part due to the fact that the violation occurred before 1 September 2011, i.e. before the Model Anti-Doping rules came into effect in Poland.
Here the principle of lex mitior appropriately applies under the circumstances of the case. The Polish Rugby Union Disciplinary Rules, in force before 1 September 2011, were more lenient for the Athlete.
Considering the circumstances the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In August 2011 the Polish Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Tomasz Świadek after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances oxilofrine and methylhexaneamine.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and admitted he had used a supplement as fat burner before the competition season. Before using he researched the ingredients of the supplement and found no prohibited substances on the label. However after the notification the Athlete found out that methylhexaneamine was mentioned on the label under the name of geranium oil extract.
The substance oxilofrine was not mentioned at all on the label of the supplement.
On 28 October 2011 the Games and Discipline Commission of the Polish Rugby Union decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete until 30 March 2012.

In July 2012, due to the late delivery of the complete case file, WADA appealed the decision of the Polish Rugby Union with the Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee (Trybunał Arbitrażowy do Spraw Sportu przy Polskim Komitecie Olimpijskim).
WADA argued that the Athlete should be sanctioned with ineligibility for a period of 2 years and that there are no grounds for waiving or shortening the sanction.

The Tribunal rules that WADA’s appeal should be dismissed due to the fact that the violation occurred before 1 September 2011, i.e. before the Model Anti-Doping rules came into effect in Poland.
Here the principle of lex mitior appropriately applies under the circumstances of the case. The Polish Rugby Union Disciplinary Rules, in force before 1 September 2011, were more lenient for the Athlete, therefore the Tribunal found no grounds for modification of the imposed sanction.
The Court of Arbitration for Sports at the Polish Olympic Committee decides to dismiss WADA’s appeal and charges the appellant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Facts
The UK Anti-Doping Limited ("UKAD") charged Brian Magee (the "athlete") for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules ("ADR"). On December 9, 2012, the Athlete competed for the World Boxing Association Super Middleweight Championship against Mikkel Kessler in Denmark. Following the competition, he provided an In-Competition sample for doping control purposes. His sample tested positive on oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and beta-methylphenethylamine. The Athlete did not request analysis of his B sample. The Athlete did not disclose the use of the Supplement on his Doping Control Form.

History
In October 2012, the Athlete suffered from a heavy cold and was forced to take a short break from his training regime. This resulted in increased fatigue. To counteract this, the Athlete began drinking coffee and Red Bull; however, the consumption of both caused the Athlete stomach discomfort. Whilst at a gym in Belfast, the Athlete purchased the supplement to replace the coffee and Red Bull. He used the supplement in the course of his training as he prepared for the bout in December 2012. He did not seek any advice regarding the use of the Supplement.

Decision
1. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to ADR Article 2.1 has been committed;
2. A period of Ineligibility of six months shall be the Consequences imposed pursuant to ADR Article 10.4;
3. That period of Ineligibility is deemed to have commenced on January 30, 2013 and will expire on July 29, 2013;
4. The Athlete’s status during this period of Ineligibility shall be as set out in ADR Article 10.10;
5. The Athlete’s results at the Event are Disqualified, along with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points and prizes; and
6. Pursuant to ADR Article 10.10.4, during the period of Ineligibility the Athlete shall remain subject to the Anti-Doping Rules.

Appeal
This decision may be appealed by the Athlete, the BBBOC or the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Related case:

CAS 2010_A_2107 Flavia Oliveira vs USAD
December 6, 2010

In September 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Flavia Oliveira after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine (Methylsynephrine).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was unaware that the supplement Hyperdrive 3.0+ contained a prohibited substance. Because she acted with a low degree of fault she requested for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and rules that there were insufficient grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided on 6 April 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, staring on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 June 2009.

Facts
The Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie, KNKF) has reported an anti doping rule violation against the athlete. The athlete had provided a sample for doping control purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of metandienone and oxilofrine. Metandienone and oxilofrine are prohibited substances according the world Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete claims a sudden diagnose for diabetics for which he used medication, this medication must be the cause for the positive test. He has a list from his general practitioner with the prescribed medications. However the panel concludes that, none of these medications contain these prohibited substances.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years.
2. The administrative costs for the procedure will be borne by the athlete.

CAS 2010/A/2107 Flavia Oliveira v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Related case:

AAA 2009 No. 77 190 00429 09 USADA vs Flavia Oliveira
April 6, 2010

• Cycling
• Doping (oxilofrine)
• Specified substance
• CAS power of review
• Requirement to prove no intent to enhance sport performance
• Degree of fault of the athlete
• Duty of care of the athletes
• Proportionality of the sanction
• Requirements for obtaining a reduced period of ineligibility
• Relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility

1. Pursuant to Article R57 of the Code, which provides the panel with full power to review the facts and law and authorizes it to issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged, a panel must make its independent determination of whether the appellant’s contentions are correct, not limit itself to assessing the correctness of the appealed decision or award.

2. Clause two of Article 10.4 of the WADA Code does not require the athlete to prove that he/she did not take a product (for example a nutritional supplement) with the intent to enhance sport performance. If such construction was adopted, an athlete’s usage of nutritional supplements, which are generally taken for performance-enhancing purposes, but which is not per se prohibited by the WADA Code, would render Article 10.4 inapplicable even if the particular supplement that is the source of a positive test result contained only a specified substance. Therefore Article 10.4 of the WADA Code requires the athlete only to prove his/her ingestion of the specified substance was not intended to enhance his/her sport performance. This construction of Article 10.4 harmonises the clear language in clause one with the differing and ambiguous language of clause two, and is consistent with its explanatory Comment.

3. The athlete’s “degree of fault” is only relevant in determining whether his/her period of ineligibility should be reduced. It is not to be considered in determining whether he/she can prove his/her lack of intent to enhance sport performance.

4. Because the risks of mislabelling and/or contamination now are generally known or at least foreseeable, all athletes must exercise reasonable care to ensure a nutrition supplement does not contain a banned substance whether the WADA Code classifies it as a prohibited or specified substance.

5. In determining the athlete’s period of ineligibility, the panel must impose an appropriate sanction that furthers the WADA Code’s objective of proportionate and consistent sanctions for doping offences based on an athlete’s level of fault under the totality of circumstances.

6. Unlike Article 10.5 of the WADA Code (and its implementation in the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations), Article 10.4 of the WADA Code (and its implementation in the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations) does not require the athlete to prove “no significant fault or negligence” to obtain a reduced period of ineligibility for testing positive for a specified substance. The appropriate inquiry is the athlete’s “degree of fault” under the circumstances. To resolve this issue, the panel must determine whether the nature and degree of his/her unreasonable conduct under the circumstances was so high that a two-year period of ineligibility is proportionate and consistent with other similar cases.

7. The fact that an athlete would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of ineligibility or the fact that the athlete only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar are not relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 of the WADA Code.

In September 2009 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Flavia Oliveira after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxilofrine (Methylsynephrine).

Consequently the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided on 6 April 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2010 the Athlete appealed the AAA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel was asked to determine the appropriate length of the Athlete’s period of ineligibility and the date on which the period of ineligibility should take effect.

The Athlete hoped to demonstrate to the Panel that her lack of intent to use a prohibited substance, her reasonable explanation as to how the prohibited substance entered her body, and her efforts to ensure that the Hyperdrive product that she ingested did not contain any prohibited substances, should support a reduction from the presumptive two-year period of ineligibility.

USADA contended that the Athlete should receive a 2 year period of ineligibility that should begin on the date that she accepted a provisional suspension.

The Panel finds that the Athlete has satisfied her burden of establishing that Oxilofrine entered her system as a result of her consumption of the supplement Hyperdrive 3.0+. Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete's testimony and other corroborating evidence establishes to its comfortable satisfaction that she did not intend to enhance her sport performance.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel deems that she acted with a lowere degree of fault. Further the Panel considers that she gave a timely admission following the notification.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 December 2010:

1.) The appeal filed by Flavia Oliveira on April 27, 2010 against the decision of the American Arbitration Association dated April 6, 2010 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the American Arbitration Association dated April 6, 2010 imposing a period of ineligibility of two years is set aside and a period of ineligibility of eighteen (18) months commencing on August 30, 2009 is substituted therefor.

3.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 paid by Flavia Oliveira which shall be retained by the CAS.

(…)

5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.